Supreme Court ruling on firearms…and nullification

I generally take a dim view of gun-control laws, believing they do more harm than good (i.e., making the law-abiding more vulnerable to criminals). That said, today’s decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in McDonald vs. City of Chicago does not have me rejoicing.

The further expansion of the SCOTUS’s 14th Amendment “Incorporation Doctrine” (a doctrine of contested validity) means simply that states, counties, and cities now have less ability to determine what policies are best for themselves regarding firearms than they had prior to this SCOTUS decision.

I urge all of you to join me in e-mailing or calling the aldermen and mayor of the City of Chicago to encourage them to nullify this SCOTUS ruling.

I think the best thing the City Government can do, aside from ignoring the ruling, is to hold a referendum on the issue. Let the citizens of Chicago determine whether the ruling is constitutional or not; let them decide whether they want more power in the hands of Washington judges, executives, and legislators or more power in the hands of their local elected officials.

A referendum result in the City’s favor would be a powerful weapon in their hands should it decide to resist this ruling.

Send along a copy of Dr. Thomas Woods’s new post about his book Nullification if you e-mail any of these individuals. They will need all the resources they can muster to defy a Supreme Court decision of this magnitude: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods142.html

Whatever our views on the 2nd Amendment and gun control laws, if we are serious about decentralization of power and limited constitutional government, we must support Chicago in her hour of need.

12 thoughts on “Supreme Court ruling on firearms…and nullification”

Walt, while I agree with the lofty ideal that we all share in this movement, and like you I believe state sovereignty would trump firearms rights in one specific region/state/city the constitution (2nd amendment) is clear, it does not say congress will make no law, it does not say the state shall make no law, it says the right to keep, and bear arms "shall not be infringed". That the 1st amendment states so clearly congress is the one being restricted, and that article4 clearly refers to states implies that anything which is not so directed toward a specific party, and is so forcefully stated in the document would apply to all parties. Does this argument make sense to you?

This ruling wasn’t about the 2nd amendment – there is no serious discussion about the 2nd amendment as the founders understood it – as applying to the states.

1. Congress shall make no law – means that other branches of DC were actually kept out of that restriction.

2. The preamble to the bill of rights makes clear that the states were concerned about federal power and that the bill of rights were a further restriction on the power of the federal government only.

3. James Madison made a number of attempts to have specific amendments in the bill of rights apply to the states – for example, the 6th. This concept was considered by the founders, and rejected.

4. the Chicago ruling – as said above – is not about the 2nd amendment. It’s about the 14th. The question at hand, did the 14th amendment require application of all the bill of rights to the states? The court, in this ruling, said yes. So, even if that view is correct (I disagree), that still invalidates most of the standard understandings of the 2nd.

If you want some additional reading on this, I would be happy to provide – there is plenty.

The argument in the latest decision is really about the 14th as I mentioned above….whether or not the 14th incorporates the BofR on the states. While I take the view that this is incorrect, it still merits discussion. But I also believe it is extremely important to start from the right fundamentals – that the BofR never applied to the states before that time, nor was it ever considered to do so.

The Supreme Court did not go far enough in nullifying the unconstitutional State and local gun laws!

The Tenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The last time I checked The 2nd Amendment prohibits anyone ,(which would include Congers or The States), from infringing on the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Second Amendment of The U.S. Constitution says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment of the United States does not “enumerate or name” any Power or government body that may infringe on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Therefore, the right is as absolute as any right a mere mortal can have.

Even the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, do not have a special or enumerated amendment to protect the people from due process of law. Life can be taken by the state. Liberty can be taken by the state; my rights to happiness end were other people’s property lines begin.

But the right to keep and bear arms does have its own special enumerated amendment!

The Supreme Court did not go far enough in nullifying the unconstitutional State and local gun laws!

The Tenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The last time I checked The 2nd Amendment prohibits anyone ,(which would include Congers or The States), from infringing on the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Second Amendment of The U.S. Constitution says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment of the United States does not “enumerate or name” any Power or government body that may infringe on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Therefore, the right is as absolute as any right a mere mortal can have.

Even the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, do not have a special or enumerated amendment to protect the people from due process of law. Life can be taken by the state. Liberty can be taken by the state; my rights to happiness end were other people’s property lines begin.

But the right to keep and bear arms does have its own special enumerated amendment!
So this is a “Supper Right” or “Uber right.”

While I fully support the right of states, counties, and cities to determine what policies are best for themselves and while I agree that SCOTUS can be over-reaching, I must express my opinion that as long as we are citizens of United States we are guaranteed the rights provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

While a ruling by SCOTUS should not dictate local government policy, the fact is that Chicago (nor any other level of government) cannot infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. If they were able to do so, what would be the point of the U.S. Constitution.

But the constitution does not GIVE you any rights. It was written to limit the power of the federal government. So was the bill of rights.

June 30, 2010 at 2:25 pm

TW Anderson

The application of the 14th as a justification for the decision reached by the court is definitely a debatable point. Perhaps my argument is better suited for discussion on a more philosophical level, but if a State or local government denies their citizens the ability to “adequately” defend themselves, they are in violation of a “natural right” to defend oneself by any means available (even if it can be argued that they are not in violation of the 2nd Amendment). As a citizen of such a government, one would necessarily be placed in a position of civil disobedience as the only means of dealing with such an oppressive law.

TW, you can always move to a state that has better laws regarding guns. There is still freedom of movement in this country. The point is while I agree that it is a violation of natural rights to restrict someones ability to defend oneself, you are the ultimate arbiter of your states laws, you have a much greater say in the government of your state, and ultimately you have 100% controll over which state you live in. After some reading I have come to the conclusion that while it runs contrary to the popular wisdom, and my understanding before today, the bill o f rights does not restrict the states, and the 14th amendment did not apply it to the states.